Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8196391" data-attributes="member: 6802765">There is yet another philosophical (specifically, epistemological) difference at play here. If I am understanding correctly, then to you, it's meaningful to say something is "correct" and something else is "wrong" even if no method exists to determine which is which. To [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER], which is "correct" and which is "wrong" is defined by the method used to determine which is which.It's not obtuseness, just more of the differing philosophy and definitions.To try to translate: from [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER]'s perspective a "category" is defined by the sorting rule that lets one determine what is and is not a member of that category. Under that approach, insisting that the climbing complication examples in the book are part of a meaningful category requires (by definition) that there exist a sorting rule to determine which of the proposed climbing complications belong in that category and which do not. Therefore, since you are arguing in favor of the existence of that category, and saying that there is a correct answer and a wrong answer to whether a proposed climbing complication belongs in that category, then by the definition [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] is using, either (1) your arguement is inconsistent or (2) you are implicitly arguing that a sorting rule exists even though there isn't one in the text (i.e. a secret rule).By contrast, it sounds like you're perfectly comfortable with the idea that there can exist a category for which no sorting rule exists but where it is still meaningful to talk about someone being correct or incorrect when they claim that X is a member of that category.</blockquote>

Verification